TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be quashed and the encumbrance entries made in the records are liable to be removed. W.P. allowed. - Writ Petition No. 5432 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2008 - NAGAMUTHU S. , J. ORDER :- S. NAGAMUTHU J. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners are admittedly joint purchasers of the property in a court auction sale conducted by Debts Recovery Tribunal on December 10, 2003. The property is comprised in S. No. 649 measuring 3.2 acres at Pallikkaranai Village, Saidapet Taluk. The first respondent by his proceedings in R.C. No. 3176/04/A3 dated August 14, 2007 has requested the second respondent to enter an encu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords pertaining to the said property on the ground that the amount due to the Department has a first charge over the said property as per the provisions of the Act. The second respondent has also entered such encumbrance in the records. Now seeking to quash the said order and for a further direction to remove the entries in the records, relating to the encumbrance, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in D. Senthil Kumar v. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode [2006] 148 STC 204 wherein an identical question came up for consideration. It was contended before the Division Bench that charge may not be enforced against a trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... water taxes and rents from the date of the agreement (i.e. August 12, 1992). For the first time, by letter dated January 8, 1993 of the second appellant to the Mandal Panchayat, Aloor Taluk, the issue of sales tax dues of the defaulting company was brought to the surface. This is further borne out by the correspondence between the first respondent and the Corporation. Thus, it is evident that the first respondent had no actual notice of the charge prior to the transfer. As to whether the first respondent had constructive notice of the charge, no substantive argument on this issue was made, either before the High Court or at any rate before us. Hence, we cannot hold that the first respondent had constructive notice of the charge. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
